The next three articles, by Daniel Little, Richard W. Wilson, and Prasenjit Duara, all address the question of relativist and universalistic interpretations in a more direct fashion. Each author suggests a stance that Asianists should take in their search for cross-cultural meaning. All of the contributors realize the faults of both previous universalistic and relativist approaches, but all continue to search for some general meaning. These authors each call upon Chinese examples, but as JAS editor David D. Buck's introduction shows, the issues they raise are general ones for all Asianists, regardless of geographic or disciplinary focus. In publishing this forum, the JAS is endeavoring to promote cross-regional and cross-disciplinary consideration of problems common to Asian Studies.
For 56 years, The Journal of Asian Studies has been recognized as the most authoritative and prestigious publication in the field of Asian Studies. This quarterly has been published regularly since November 1941, offering Asianists a wealth of information unavailable elsewhere. Each issue contains four to five feature articles on topics involving the history, arts, social sciences, philosophy, and contemporary issues of East, South, and Southeast Asia, as well as a large book review section.
Formed in 1941, the Association for Asian Studies--the largest society of its kind in the world--is a scholarly, non-political, and non-profit professional association open to all persons interested in Asia. It seeks through publications, meetings, and seminars to facilitate contact and an exchange of information among scholars to increase their understanding of East, South, and Southeast Asia. For further information about AAS activities, publications, and membership, please see the AAS website: http://www.aasianst.org/.